Friday, January 26, 2007

I had the nice opportunity to speak at the Pacific Free and Open Source Software Convention (PFOSSCON 2007) in Honolulu, Hawai'i, last weekend. This was done as part of my job at Vyatta. While I managed to acquire a cold after coming home, earlier this week, the conference was great. Kudos to Scott Belford, Jim Thompson, and Julian Yap for putting everything together.

The summary is that after meeting Stallman, I wasn't very impressed. I have been reading his writings, such as the GNU Manifesto, since the mid-1980s. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I didn't get it. My reaction to both the man and the message fall into a few broad categories. I think I'll blog in more detail about these things in the future sometime, but here are the broad reactions:

Richard is not the best spokesman for the FSF. Sure, he founded the organization. And I wasn't expecting him to wear a shirt and tie. But to be honest, he's just a shabby guy. If you ever wonder why generally Free Software went nowhere inside corporate circles until Linux came along, this is one reason. Just at a personal level, Linus is a better spokes-model than Richard. He's just as geeky, without looking shabby.

I react very negatively to Richard's use of "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux." Richard's contention is that all the userland for Linux came from GNU and thus Linux is really just the kernel while the whole OS should be called "GNU/Linux." Whether that is true or not, the fact is, Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to name it. If Free Software is truly as Free as Richard wants to claim it is, naming should be one of the things where the Freedom shows. Put another way, I have no issue if the FSF and GNU want to put out their own Linux distribution and name it "GNU/Linux," or even just "The GNU System," that's fine. I have big problems with Richard trying to convince me that I should tack "GNU" onto the front of "Linux" for some reason. I would worry that at any time Richard might claim that the use of GPL code might warrant changing the name of your application to "GNU/Foo." This is all the more annoying because Hurd still sucks and without Linux the overall goals of the original GNU project would still be unmet. Simply, this whole naming thing is a big case of sour grapes that Linux has been successful and has eclipsed GNU in terms of relevancy.

My other big takeaway from the conference is that I don't agree with Richard on the fundamental philosophy of free software. There, I said it. HORRORS!. And here I am at an open source company. Sorry, while I like open source and believe there are certain advantages to it, I specifically reject Richard's moral basis for Free Software. Richard tries to portray access to source code and redistribution for no charge as abstract moral rights that every person should have, something akin to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Using proprietary software, Richard says, is to make an immoral choice. I don't buy it. I like using Linux better than Windows for a variety of reasons, but I don't believe the people at Microsoft are immoral because they choose to keep their source code to themselves (I do think some of Microsoft's monopoly business practices are immoral, but those are another matter). In my opinion, this is why the FSF has been largely ineffectual in getting people to think about "Free Software" as opposed to "Open Source" (a term which Richard rejects as missing the point). Simply, I don't think most of the developers or users of software see a philosophical, moral argument to made with respect to closed software. Again, I think Linus here wins hands-down as the leader of a large software movement because he focuses on the real issue: the open-source development model allows users to have more control and harnesses the innovation of a larger number of creative developers.

Well, that's all for now. In spite of my disagreement with Richard, I bought a copy of Free Software, Free Society from him and had him autograph it.

[this is why the FSF has been largely ineffectual in getting people to think about "Free Software" as opposed to "Open Source"]

But the thing is that the license that is the most used in the FOSS movement _is_ the GPL. No other license is getting even close to it. So even if the morality argument can be discussed, the fact is that practically speaking RS's thinking (as reflected by the GPL & derivatives) is totally mainstream now.

You seem like a nice guy, but I disagree with you here. I certainly don't consider Stallman infamous. And it seems almost cruel that someone thinks of him as being infamous, after emacs and lots of GNU goodies.

And, yes, GNU/Linux did seem like sour grapes, but it does highlight the GNU bits in most Linux distributions. Would you rather prefer Linux/GNU? Or maybe Linux/Goo ;-)

"Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to name it."

But that's just it: Linus (and others) didn't build an OS, they built a kernel and they are free to name it.

"If Free Software is truly as Free as Richard wants to claim it is, naming should be one of the things where the Freedom shows."

The GNU/Linux naming issue is about history, attribution and public perception. It's not about whether any particular (collection of) free software is actually free software or not but about whether the people using it recognise it and value it as such.

"I have big problems with Richard trying to convince me that I would tack "GNU" onto the front of "Linux" for some reason. I would worry that at any time Richard might claim that the use of GPL code might warrant changing the name of your application to "GNU/Foo.""

Why would you worry about that? It wouldn't make any sense to do so.

"and without Linux the overall goals of the original GNU project would still be unmet."

That doesn't follow and it doesn't even seem the most likely alternate history to me.

"he focuses on the real issue: the open-source development model allows users to have more control and harnesses the innovation of a larger number of creative developers."

Yes of course. That is the narrow pragmatic view and it isn't wrong, but it isn't the whole story and it certainly isn't the real issue for everyone.

It may be sour grapes on the part of Stallman, but I do think he has a right to them grapes. If gcc and countless other programs did not exist, there would be no Linux. And without Richard and GNU there would be no gcc or framework _for_ a Linux kernel. Linus comes along and is essentially getting credit for all the hard work that GNU put into the vast majority of what Linux is.

What I think is a shame is that the microkernel/monolith split hurt GNU. Stallman seems at times torn between the New Jersey way and the MIT way. He creates Emacs that follows an MIT-style, but he's much more pragmatic with the *ix framework. But with the Hurd, it seems he let idealism get ahead of pragmatism. And this is where Linus won.

I understand where Stallman is coming from. I know he wants GNU better represented. But I also don't think he needs to worry. People know GNU from things like The GIMP and GNOME. They aren't going anywhere.

Your second point prejudges the issue, as has already been noted. On the third, I think you're just wrong about Linus Torvalds: I've seen usenet postings where he describes software as being free if and only if it is free in the sense that a free man (as opposed to a bondsman, or citizen not receiving his full measure of rights) is free. Not exactly the hard-headed economic analysis you seem to imagine.

It mainly happens that Linux is an easier, more computery seeming name than GNU, and practical GNU-based systems only became possible after GNU was ported to Linux. Finally, distributors needed to make clear that they were not just offering the collection of GNU software, but a full operating system stack with application software. This is why the name has more attention on it.

Nice comments from people. I respectfully disagree on the GNU/Linux naming issue. I believe that GNU has been terrifically imfluential on everybody's thinking. Clearly Stallman has written great programs such as Emacs and gcc that programmers use everyday. I have no arguments with that, Paul and Tim.

But if GNU is really going to be true to itself, one of the tenets must be to be able to use the code in another project with another name, without fear that Richard or anybody else is going to come along and want to rename your project.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: If you think Stallman has the right to call it GNU/Linux, do you think that the MACH people have the right to call it MACH/GNU, if and when Hurd is ever successful?

I have big problems with Richard trying to convince me that I should tack "GNU" onto the front of "Linux" for some reason.

He's just trying to *convince* you that there could be a reason one might want to mention GNU when talking about Linux. No one's forcing you. Or anyone else. And it's not really nagging, is it? Why does anyone care so much that someone *didn't* convince them of their argument? The whole thing just seems a little bit silly.

I would worry that at any time Richard might claim that the use of GPL code might warrant changing the name of your application to "GNU/Foo."

Of course, with the GPL, anyone can fork your project at any time and rename it anything they want.

He's just trying to *convince* you that there could be a reason one might want to mention GNU when talking about Linux. No one's forcing you. Or anyone else. And it's not really nagging, is it? Why does anyone care so much that someone *didn't* convince them of their argument? The whole thing just seems a little bit silly.

See, that's sort of what I was expecting from Richard--reasoned dialog. What I found out was the Richard doesn't dialog. He pretty much insists. Again, I have nothing against GNU. I have something against GNU insisting that I use the words GNU/Linux everywhere.

Of course, with the GPL, anyone can fork your project at any time and rename it anything they want.

But that's exactly my point. Linux basically forked GNU. And called it Linux. If GNU wants to fork Linux back and call it GNU, I'm happy with that, too. Just don't run around insisting that people change the name of their projects that use your code.

Repeat: I'm not opposed to Richard calling GNU's distribution GNU/Linux. Or even just GNU. I'm opposed to Richard taking umbrage with everybody else calling it just Linux.

"Just don't run around insisting that people change the name of their projects that use your code."

Hi again Dave. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? ;-)

"Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that those values of freedom brought the system into existence."

Richard Stallman and GNU are the "politically correct" software options in our current climate. To go against them is to raise the ire of many people. It has to be said, because we're talking about politically correct thinking, that many of those people blindly believe in GNU without knowing what they're talking about. I see this daily on the web. Nobody should be able to call themselves a free software advocate unless they've actually read the GPL! Surprisingly few have.

I agree with what you say about Stallman, sad to say. In a corporate world of software, we need a corporate representative. As profound as he is, Stallman ain't that guy. He's a philosopher. But he's not a philosopher king.

I have my fingers crossed that Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth might take the anti-Gates role, but so far he's been keeping his head down. He's a guy who is corporate in outlook, but also a free software advocate. I've seen him on a couple of TV reports and he's presentable and likable. He's our best hope!

In terms of naming, while it ultimately doesn't matter, you're quite wrong in your reasoning. Linus didn't fork GNU -- he didn't change any (or almost any GNU source). He wrote an OS kernel. A kernel is different from an OS -- it is one component of an OS. If I take Debian, swap out Linux and swap in BSD, it's basically the same OS. The combination of the GNU userspace, the Linux kernel, and now, hundreds of other bits of code, form the overall OS. Linus didn't make an OS -- other people took the kernel, the userspace, other stuff, and combined it into an OS. It's a historical fluke that the OS is getting called by the name of one of its components, but the OS is really Red Hat, or Debian, or Ubuntu, but not Linux. Grouping the OSes is convenient, but calling them Linux-based OSes (or GNU-based OSes or whatever else) is a bit verbose, so some naming convention for the OS is needed.

Calling the overall system Linux leads to a lot of confusion. See all the SCO commentary about "how could one person write a whole OS?" for an example. See all the "What version of Linux are you using" questions to newbies. It is a real problem.

Richard is proposing (and insisting on) a better naming convention that has the added benefit of giving him credit. Kernel=Linux. OS=GNU/Linux. I won't argue whether it's the best naming convention, but it sure beats overloading the name, and in the process, implying all the credit falls on Linus.

Hurd, by the way, doesn't suck because the FSF can't write code. It sucks because when Linux became mature, the FSF basically stopped working on it. There's one or two guys hacking on it still, as a hobby, but the FSF isn't putting any manpower into it anymore (in many years).

Linus, by the way, doesn't care if you call it Linux or GNU/Linux. He called his kernel Linux. He doesn't care what you call the OS.

Hi Dave, hope you're recovered from the cold... I'm trying to make sure I'm not getting the one going around where I am. ;)

I try to consider that Stallman opined he's mildly autistic. So I translate his bold statements from Stallman ethics-speak: I won't necessarily follow his advice, but at least I'll have thought about it and consciously justified my decision either way.

That obviously doesn't make him the world's greatest diplomat, but OTOH, it gave him the focus to work on Free Software like mad, even (permanently?) injuring his wrists in the process. On the whole, I expect he's very effective.

(Incidentally, yesterday I caught part of a Youtube 3-part interview on autism, where the autistic person learned to articulate herself to people like us very well, and she explained how her perceptions differ from others... She has certain strengths and us "neurotypical" have certain weaknesses; however, society supports our weaknesses but not hers. So for example, she has certain skills, like an easy time learning to program and fixing cars, which most of us can't easily do; but we have specialists providing those services to us.)

1) Berkeley Software Distribution has provided a lot of code that has been in use in corporate environments long before Linux existed.

2) RMS is just a hothead communist who can barely write code. His success of convincing people that ability to sell binaries is not considered as freedom proves once again how stupid people are and how easy they are to herd.

3) If Linux had not seen the light of day, there would be another "Linux". eg. Plan 9, BeOS, *BSD, Darwin, OpenSolaris.

4) Arguing about terms like Linux vs. GNU/Linux is a waste of breath, and people arguing about them are a waste of space.

5) RMS may look like a worn-out hippie (which he is, in fact), but at least he has the guts to stand up for what he believes is right and doesn't pretend anything. Such as wearing a tie, or caring what corporations think of him.

There, I guess that's enough steam for now. For the fraction of people who don't get easily flamed might actually find a point of two in there, rest go in peace.

You've got to give it to Richard Stallman on the following points:* He is a visionary in creating the open software movement* Like it or not, the GPL has protected his and other peoples work* For some people ( me ) most of the software they use everyday passes through a process which is licensed GPL

We can all imagine various other universes where Stallman wears a polo shirt and khaki pants and is on the South Beach Diet or whatever, but that is just decisional.

You don't have to believe in the moral argument for free software, to participate. If you see tangible benefits to using GPL software, there is no inquisition, you just comply with the license.

Personally I would be bored to tears if Richard Stallman weren't this universes version.

Dave, about that reasoned dialog you were expecting; RMS will cut you off early in conversation, kind of like the way a procedure will have a few different checks near the top before proceeding on and bail out early if the parameters don't seem correct. He needs to be sure that you understand what you're saying before he can be sure he has correctly received your thought, to give you a proper response.

Using ``Linux'' alone to describe the system as a whole is one red flag. Another is using ``Intellectual property'' when really you should be speaking about copyrights and patents, trademarks, individually.

I hope one day if you meet him again you get beyond that initial shock/frustration/suprise and get to have a more in depth conversation. Probably then you will start avoiding terms like open source too and start to see free software as really the great equalizer, the last step towards ensuring users are no longer divided.

You said:--------------------------------------I react very negatively to Richard's use of "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux." Richard's contention is that all the userland for Linux came from GNU and thus Linux is really just the kernel while the whole OS should be called "GNU/Linux." Whether that is true or not, the fact is, Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to name it. --------------------------------------

As someone else mentioned above, this is simply wrong. You seem to conflating the kernel with the operating system. Granted there are no clear guidelines about exactly what constitutes 'the OS', but RMS et al built the infrastructure that Linus used to write his kernel. There's no debate about this.

To publish about something you are so obviously ignorant about is irresponsible, and I'm being charitable.

I'm the Jim Thompson mentioned above. Now that its a couple years later, I guess I can relate "the rest of the story".

I actually maneuvered RMS *out of the venue* (to watch a music performance on campus at UH) while Dave was talking, because otherwise, Stallman would have erupted the first time Dave uttered "open source".

>Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to>name it.

Linus don't built an OS, he built a kernel. The one who really wrotean OS was Richard among much others, and they named it GNU. We thinkLinus is the most important part after GNU, so for give the appropiatecredit we say "GNU/Linux."

>without Linux the overall goals of the original GNU project would>still be unmet. Simply, this whole naming thing is a big case of sour>grapes that Linux has been successful and has eclipsed GNU in terms>of relevancy.

You are turning the things upside down.

Actually, Linux contain propietary parts, so it don't helps GNU goals.Some GNU volunteers have created a fully free version of Linux, namedlinux-libre.

But however, Linux depends on GNU to compile (GCC) and work (Installedsoftware).

>Using proprietary software, Richard says, is to make an immoral>choice.

Richards says using propietary software is unfair for the user, butnot immoral.

The inmmoral people are the propietary software developers, whoseprevent the users make a free use of the software.

>the open-source development model allows users to have more control>and harnesses the innovation of a larger number of creative>developers.

Of course, lots of people (Including you) don't like morallity at all,because they don't care about what is good and what is bad. Is thevery same (un)thinking of all the stupid politics over the world thancarry the world to the poverty and misfortune.

>Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to>name it.

Linus don't built an OS, he built a kernel. The one who really wrotean OS was Richard among much others, and they named it GNU. We thinkLinus is the most important part after GNU, so for give the appropiatecredit we say "GNU/Linux."

>without Linux the overall goals of the original GNU project would>still be unmet. Simply, this whole naming thing is a big case of sour>grapes that Linux has been successful and has eclipsed GNU in terms>of relevancy.

You are turning the things upside down.

Actually, Linux contain propietary parts, so it don't helps GNU goals.Some GNU volunteers have created a fully free version of Linux, namedlinux-libre.

But however, Linux depends on GNU to compile (GCC) and work (Installedsoftware).

>Using proprietary software, Richard says, is to make an immoral>choice.

Richards says using propietary software is unfair for the user, butnot immoral.

The inmmoral people are the propietary software developers, whoseprevent the users make a free use of the software.

>the open-source development model allows users to have more control>and harnesses the innovation of a larger number of creative>developers.

Of course, lots of people (Including you) don't like morallity at all,because they don't care about what is good and what is bad. Is thevery same (un)thinking of all the stupid politics over the world thancarry the world to the poverty and misfortune.

>Linus built his own operating system and he should have the right to>name it.

Linus don't built an OS, he built a kernel. The one who really wrotean OS was Richard among much others, and they named it GNU. We thinkLinus is the most important part after GNU, so for give the appropiatecredit we say "GNU/Linux."

>without Linux the overall goals of the original GNU project would>still be unmet. Simply, this whole naming thing is a big case of sour>grapes that Linux has been successful and has eclipsed GNU in terms>of relevancy.

You are turning the things upside down.

Actually, Linux contain propietary parts, so it don't helps GNU goals.Some GNU volunteers have created a fully free version of Linux, namedlinux-libre.

But however, Linux depends on GNU to compile (GCC) and work (Installedsoftware).

>Using proprietary software, Richard says, is to make an immoral>choice.

Richards says using propietary software is unfair for the user, butnot immoral.

The inmmoral people are the propietary software developers, whoseprevent the users make a free use of the software.

>the open-source development model allows users to have more control>and harnesses the innovation of a larger number of creative>developers.

Of course, lots of people (Including you) don't like morallity at all,because they don't care about what is good and what is bad. Is thevery same (un)thinking of all the stupid politics over the world thancarry the world to the poverty and misfortune.